I imagine what I want to write in my case, I write it in the search engine and I get exactly what I wanted. Thank you!
Valentina R., lawyer
(Case C-725/19) (*)
(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Directive 93/13/EEC - Unfair terms in consumer contracts - Principle of equivalence - Principle of effectiveness - Enforcement proceedings in respect of a leasing contract constituting an enforceable instrument - Objection to enforcement - National legislation not allowing the court hearing that objection to determine whether the terms of an enforceable instrument are unfair - Power of the court hearing the enforcement proceedings to examine of its own motion whether a term is unfair - Existence of an action under ordinary law allowing the review of whether those terms were unfair - Requirement of a security in order to suspend the enforcement proceedings)
(2022/C 266/04)
Language of the case: Romanian
Applicant: IO
Defendant: Impuls Leasing România IFN SA
Article 6(1) and Article 7(1) of Council Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts must be interpreted as precluding national legislation which does not allow the court hearing the enforcement proceedings in respect of a debt, before which an objection to enforcement has been lodged, to assess, of its own motion, or at the request of the consumer, whether the terms of a contract concluded between a consumer and a seller or supplier which constitutes an enforceable instrument are unfair, where the court having jurisdiction to rule on the substance of the case, which may be seised of a separate action under the ordinary law with a view to an assessment as to whether the terms of that contract are unfair, may only suspend the enforcement proceedings until a decision has been given on the substance if a security is paid at a level that is likely to dissuade the consumer from bringing and maintaining such an action.
(*) Language of the case: Romanian.